Ross Gardler wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: thorsten
Date: Fri Aug 4 07:01:27 2006
New Revision: 428728
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=428728&view=rev
Log:
Throwing the exception instead of swollowing it. Forgot to add this in
the first place.
Modified:
forrest/trunk/main/java/org/apache/forrest/conf/ForrestConfModule.java
Modified:
forrest/trunk/main/java/org/apache/forrest/conf/ForrestConfModule.java
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/forrest/trunk/main/java/org/apache/forrest/conf/ForrestConfModule.java?rev=428728&r1=428727&r2=428728&view=diff
==============================================================================
---
forrest/trunk/main/java/org/apache/forrest/conf/ForrestConfModule.java
(original)
+++
forrest/trunk/main/java/org/apache/forrest/conf/ForrestConfModule.java
Fri Aug 4 07:01:27 2006
@@ -177,6 +177,7 @@
}
} catch (Exception e) {
getLogger().error("Opps, something went wrong.",e);
+ throw new Exception("Opps, something went wrong.",e);
}
Better, but ...
Why wrap it in a new exception?
We should be doing one of the following:
1) prevent the exception occurring
2) trap the exception and deal with it
3) let the exception pass through and deal with it later
4) wrap the exception in a *more* meaningful exception (either checked
or unchecked) and rethrow it
What was happening was 2) with respect to FileNotFound and 3) with
respect to all other exceptions.
You've modified it so that we are doing 2) with respect to FileNotFound,
that's good, but you have also wrapped the exception in a *less*
meaningful one for example you could be going from IOException to
Exception.
Sorry that should read you have modified it to do 10 with respect to FNF.
What added benefit do we get from this catch and rethrow?
Ross
